作为社会缩影的社交媒体:新加坡LGBT Twitter对话的十年。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-10-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0332700
Reuben Ng, Ting Yu Joanne Chow, Wenshu Yang
{"title":"作为社会缩影的社交媒体:新加坡LGBT Twitter对话的十年。","authors":"Reuben Ng, Ting Yu Joanne Chow, Wenshu Yang","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0332700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Singapore occupies a curious societal grey-area: a digitally savvy country with a colonial-remnant law against homosexuality (penal code 377A), widely acknowledged as non-proactively enforced, existing to placate a conservative society; hotly contested for years and finally repealed in Parliament in 2022. Within a national context of state-upheld heteronormativity, yet with homosexuality not entirely condemned, Singapore occupies a liminal space where subtle resistance is carefully negotiated, especially in online spaces.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated LGBT-adjacent discussions across social media over a decade (2011-2021) for salient topics, sentiment distribution, emotional intensity frames and nuanced topics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Historical Twitter data containing LGBT keywords (N = 15,659) were collected and analyzed using bi-term topic modelling, sentiment score modelling, and emotional intensity modelling. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on highest-scoring emotion tiers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sentiment was distributed over a range: Very Positive (6%), Positive (33%), Neutral (11%), Negative (42%), Very Negative (7%). Predominant emotions were Joy (39%), Anger (32%), Sadness (11%), Fear (11%). Of themes from highest-scoring emotional-intensity tweets, Anger included: 'gay' used derogatorily; heated debates over ideological-often religious-differences; dissent within the community, condemning exclusionary views. Fear and Sadness included distress over violence (mass shootings, harassment, bullying); lack of acceptance (criminalization, protests over local pride event 'Pinkdot'; lack of familial support). Joy stemmed from the celebration of pride month.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings highlight nuanced emotional intensities, profiles undertones of LGBT dissent and support, fractured along a schism of differing views and contrasting opinions-a societal microcosm of a divisive topic. Practically, this presents a decade-long barometer of dominant trigger points that may help facilitate conversations on the affective concerns of the local population.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 10","pages":"e0332700"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12510499/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social media as societal microcosm: A decade of LGBT Twitter conversations in Singapore.\",\"authors\":\"Reuben Ng, Ting Yu Joanne Chow, Wenshu Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0332700\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Singapore occupies a curious societal grey-area: a digitally savvy country with a colonial-remnant law against homosexuality (penal code 377A), widely acknowledged as non-proactively enforced, existing to placate a conservative society; hotly contested for years and finally repealed in Parliament in 2022. Within a national context of state-upheld heteronormativity, yet with homosexuality not entirely condemned, Singapore occupies a liminal space where subtle resistance is carefully negotiated, especially in online spaces.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated LGBT-adjacent discussions across social media over a decade (2011-2021) for salient topics, sentiment distribution, emotional intensity frames and nuanced topics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Historical Twitter data containing LGBT keywords (N = 15,659) were collected and analyzed using bi-term topic modelling, sentiment score modelling, and emotional intensity modelling. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on highest-scoring emotion tiers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sentiment was distributed over a range: Very Positive (6%), Positive (33%), Neutral (11%), Negative (42%), Very Negative (7%). Predominant emotions were Joy (39%), Anger (32%), Sadness (11%), Fear (11%). Of themes from highest-scoring emotional-intensity tweets, Anger included: 'gay' used derogatorily; heated debates over ideological-often religious-differences; dissent within the community, condemning exclusionary views. Fear and Sadness included distress over violence (mass shootings, harassment, bullying); lack of acceptance (criminalization, protests over local pride event 'Pinkdot'; lack of familial support). Joy stemmed from the celebration of pride month.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings highlight nuanced emotional intensities, profiles undertones of LGBT dissent and support, fractured along a schism of differing views and contrasting opinions-a societal microcosm of a divisive topic. Practically, this presents a decade-long barometer of dominant trigger points that may help facilitate conversations on the affective concerns of the local population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 10\",\"pages\":\"e0332700\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12510499/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332700\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332700","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:新加坡处于一个奇怪的社会灰色地带:一个精通数字技术的国家,有殖民时期遗留下来的反同性恋法(刑法典377A),被广泛认为没有主动执行,存在的目的是安抚一个保守的社会;经过多年的激烈争论,最终于2022年在议会被废除。在国家支持异性恋规范的国家背景下,同性恋并没有完全受到谴责,新加坡占据了一个有限的空间,在这里,人们小心翼翼地进行了微妙的抵制,尤其是在网络空间。目的:本研究调查了十多年来(2011-2021年)社交媒体上与lgbt相关的讨论,包括突出话题、情绪分布、情绪强度框架和微妙话题。方法:收集包含LGBT关键词的Twitter历史数据(N = 15659),采用双词主题建模、情绪评分建模和情绪强度建模进行分析。对得分最高的情感层进行定性主题分析。结果:受访者的情绪分布范围为:非常积极(6%)、积极(33%)、中性(11%)、消极(42%)、非常消极(7%)。主要的情绪是喜悦(39%),愤怒(32%),悲伤(11%),恐惧(11%)。在情感强度得分最高的推文主题中,“愤怒”包括:贬义地使用“同性恋”;关于意识形态(通常是宗教)差异的激烈辩论;社区内的异议,谴责排他性的观点。恐惧和悲伤包括对暴力(大规模枪击、骚扰、欺凌)的痛苦;缺乏接受(刑事定罪,抗议当地的骄傲事件“粉红点”;缺乏家庭支持)。欢乐源自骄傲月的庆祝活动。结论:我们的研究结果强调了微妙的情感强度,描绘了同性恋者的异议和支持的底层,沿着不同观点和对比意见的分裂而分裂,这是一个分裂话题的社会缩影。实际上,这提供了一个长达十年的主要触发点晴雨表,可能有助于促进有关当地居民情感关切的对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social media as societal microcosm: A decade of LGBT Twitter conversations in Singapore.

Background: Singapore occupies a curious societal grey-area: a digitally savvy country with a colonial-remnant law against homosexuality (penal code 377A), widely acknowledged as non-proactively enforced, existing to placate a conservative society; hotly contested for years and finally repealed in Parliament in 2022. Within a national context of state-upheld heteronormativity, yet with homosexuality not entirely condemned, Singapore occupies a liminal space where subtle resistance is carefully negotiated, especially in online spaces.

Objectives: This study investigated LGBT-adjacent discussions across social media over a decade (2011-2021) for salient topics, sentiment distribution, emotional intensity frames and nuanced topics.

Methods: Historical Twitter data containing LGBT keywords (N = 15,659) were collected and analyzed using bi-term topic modelling, sentiment score modelling, and emotional intensity modelling. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on highest-scoring emotion tiers.

Results: Sentiment was distributed over a range: Very Positive (6%), Positive (33%), Neutral (11%), Negative (42%), Very Negative (7%). Predominant emotions were Joy (39%), Anger (32%), Sadness (11%), Fear (11%). Of themes from highest-scoring emotional-intensity tweets, Anger included: 'gay' used derogatorily; heated debates over ideological-often religious-differences; dissent within the community, condemning exclusionary views. Fear and Sadness included distress over violence (mass shootings, harassment, bullying); lack of acceptance (criminalization, protests over local pride event 'Pinkdot'; lack of familial support). Joy stemmed from the celebration of pride month.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight nuanced emotional intensities, profiles undertones of LGBT dissent and support, fractured along a schism of differing views and contrasting opinions-a societal microcosm of a divisive topic. Practically, this presents a decade-long barometer of dominant trigger points that may help facilitate conversations on the affective concerns of the local population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信